HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-03-21_COUNCIL MEETING7
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 21, 1983
MINUTES of November 1, 1982, and March 7, 1983, approved as submitted by motion
of ,-seconded by
RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS - Edina High School Hockey Team
Edina High School Girls Basketball Team
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON PLANNING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice by
Clerk. Presentation by Planning Department. Spectators heard. First Read-
ing of Zoning Ordinance requires offering of Ordinance only. 4/5 favorable
rollcall vote to pass Second Reading or if Second Reading should be waived.
Lot Divisions, Flood Plain Permits, Plats, Appeals from Administrative or
Board of Appeals and Adjustments decisions require action by Resolution.
3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass.
A. Hedberg & Sons - East of France Ave. and North of Parklawn Ave. extended
1. R -1 Residential District to POD Planned Office District
.2. Hedberg Parklawn Acres - Preliminary Plat Approval
(Continued from 3/7/83) (Continue to 4/18/83)
B. Pearson /Elmer Townhouses - Generally located.South of Vernon Ave. and
East of Vernon Court (Continue to 4/4/83)
1. R -2 Residential District to PRD -2 Planned Residential District
2. Pearson /Elmer Addition - Preliminary Plat Approval
C. Westridge Estate - Preliminary Plat Approval - Generally located North
of Crosstown Highway and West of MN &S Railroad
D. Braemar Associates /Klodt Development Co. - Amendment to PRD -3 Planned
Residential District Overall Development Plan - W. of Cahill and N. of W.
78th St:
E. Year 9 Community Development Block Grant Budget r.
II. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS
A. Mrs. Mary R. Thatcher - Grace Church Expansion
III. AWARD OF BIDS AND QUOTES - Tabulations and Recommendations by.City Manager.
Action of Council by Motion.
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS
A. Sewer. Rehabilitation,Report
B. Set Hearing Dates
1. Crosstown Hills.Easement Vacation (4/18/83)
C. Beer Licenses
D. Relamping City Streets
E. Special Concerns of Mayor and Council
F. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items
V. ORDINANCES
A. First Reading
1. Cable Franchise Ordinance Amendment
2. Ordinance No. 434 -A6 - Decking Requirement for Indoor Whirlpools
VI. FINANCE
A. Claims Paid: Motion of , seconded by , for payment of
the following Claims as per Pre -List: General Fund, $427,044.81, Park
Fund, $20,063.03, Art Fund, $1,774.20, Golf Course, $2,445.53,
Arena, $8,744.25, Gun Range, $852.44, Water Fund, $8,348.03, Sewer
Fund, $3,943.98, Liquor Fund, $72,193.32, Construction, $180.76,
IBR Fund, $12.00, Total, $545,602.35
w- L�aiv- /L/O -iy
(OFFICIAL PUBLICATION)
CITY OF EDINA
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL will meet at the Edina City Hall, 4801 West 50th
Street, on Monday, March 21, 1983, at 7:00 P.M. and will at said time and
place consider the following:
Rezoning request from R -2 Two Family Dwelling District to PRD 2 Planned
Residence District for Pearson /Elmer Townhouses and Preliminary Plat Approval
for Pearson /Elmer Addition. Generally located south of Vernon Avenue and
east of Vernon Court. Generally described as Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Crosstown
Hills.
Preliminary Plat Approval of Westrid a Estates, generally located north of
Crosstown Highway and west of MNS Railway. Generally described as
that part of Tract B, R.L.S. No. 519 lying east of Tract A, R.L.S. 519 and
lying north of County Highway No. 62, except the easterly 70 feet thereof.
Rezoning request from R -1 Single Family Residence to PRD 3 Planned Residence
District for Braemar Associate; Construct Comp-
::n generally located
west of Cahill Road and north of West 78th Street. Generally described as part
Outlot 1, Heath Glen and part of the E 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 8,
T 116, R 21.
All recommendations and objections will be heard at said meeting.
BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL.
FLORENCE B. HALLBERG
City Clerk
* Please publish in the Edina Sun on Wednesday, March 9, 1983.
* Please send six (6) Affidavits of Publication.
tt��
N � OP
&I SV.
f Z
0
O
i�
/
�J
Orr
e
zon.T,,.iqcj
REQUEs'r m mf ER: Z -79 -10
Braemar Associates
LO(:ATIO* \: Generally located west of Cahill Road
and north of Vi 78th Street.
RFQUEST: R -1 Single Family Dwelling to
F- oo ►
PRD -3 Planned Residential District.
Overall Flan �npraval.
L ���. i
� I
1
�illn�e• j�(,n+nint• +irk +nri +� +�•+•
�• ++Lr ,�� r�rinr:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MARCH 2, 1983
Z -79 -10 Braemar Associates / Klodt Construction Co.
Generally located west of Cahill Road and north of West 78th Street
Refer to: Revised overall development plan; October 1, 1980, Staff report
The Commission and Council granted final rezoning approval to PRD -3 for the
subject property approximately two years ago. At that time, an eight building
condominium project containing 89 units was approved. This project included
excess right -of -way from land acquired for Delaney Boulevard. Construction of
the condominium project has never commenced.
The property owners have nowjoined forces with Klodt Construction Company
who proposes to develop the east half of the site. Klodt desires to modify
the overall development plan to reflect a considerable reduction in the unit
sizes as compared to the earlier plan. The revised plans illustrate two
condominium buildings containing a total of 54 dwelling units. These two
buildings will take the place of five condominium buildings (also containing
54 units) which were proposed by the earlier plans. The present site plan
illustrates considerably less building coverage than the earlier plan due to the
substantial decrease in unit sizes. (The present units are less than one half
the floor area of the prior condominiums.) Underbuilding and surface parking
are proposed in numbers which conform to our ordinance. As with the earlier
plan, a 15 foot parking setback from Cahill Road is proposed which is below
the required setback of 35 feet. All other setbacks are consistent with our
requirements.
The proponents have also submitted schematic floor plans and elevation drawings
in support of their plan amendment. Landscape plans , grading plans,
utility plans, and so forth have not been submitted at this time.
The proponents are not suggesting significant changes to the original plan
for the west half of the site. Three condominium buildings containing 36
extremely large units continue to be shown. (It should be noted that the
approved plans show 35 units in these buildings rather than 36.) The site
plan illustrates a slight re- alignment of these buildings to the north and east
in order to provide a more generous spacing between the buildings.
A revised subdivision has not been submitted for the property. It is our
understanding that such a plat would divide the property in half and therefore two
totally separate condominium associations would be created.
Community Development
March 2, 1983
Page two
Recommendation:
and Planning Commission
We were very supportive of the prior proposal for the site. Thus, it is
difficult for us to be enthusiastic about a plan which in essence, separates
the site into two distinct projects which are very different in terms of their
style and market.
However, we acknowledge that the site is somewhat unique in terms of its
surrounding land uses which lead to a more modestly priced unit for the
easterly portion of the site and a luxury class unit for the westerly portion.
Also, the site has excellent access which does not hinder the establishment
of separate projects.
We believe the site plan proposes a desireable placement of the two condominium
buildings and their accessory parking. The ponding, area in the center of
the site is retained as originally shown and should provide an excellent
amenity for the project. As noted earlier, the building coverage of the new
proposal is .considerably reduced which will contribute to a feeling of openess
on the site. Our-only requested modification to the site plan is that the
parking setback from Cahill should be increased to 20 feet which is more
consistent with parking setbacks in other areas.
We would ask that additional work should be undertaken on the elevation plans
of the building. We are particulary concerned with the proposed roof line of
the building, especially the shed roofs which are shown in various locations.
As noted earlier, landscape plans, grading plans, etc., which usually
are submitted in cases such as this have not been provided. Such drawings
should be provided for review prior to approval of the plan amendment
by the Council.
Subject to the above modifications and comments, Staff recommends approval
of the plan, amendment conditioned upon:
1. The elimination of one dwelling unit from the project in order to
make the density consistent with the earlier approval and
2: submission of a revised subdivision for the site.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
OCTOBER 1, 1980
Z -79 -10 Braemar Associates. R -1 Single Family Dwelling to
PRD -3 Planned Residential District. Final rezoning
and preliminary plat approval.
Refer to: Attached overall development plans and November 28, 1979,
Staff Report
The Commission and City Council granted preliminary approval of this-re-
zoning to PRD -3 in late 1979. You will recall that this development plan
incorporates a portion of the property acquired by the City for Delaney
Boulevard.
The proponents have now returned with overal development plans and are
requesting final rezoning approval. As before, the site plan illustrates 89
condominium units located in eight buildings which represent an overall
density of about 8.5 units per acre. Approximately two enclosed parking
spaces and .5 exposed parking spaces per unit are proposed.
The overall development plans also include a grading plan, a concept land-
scape plan, utility plan, unit plans, and elevation drawings. In addition,
the proponents have submitted a preliminary subdivision.
Recommendation
Staff believes that the proponents have prepared an excellent development '
concept for the site. The plan preserves the slopes and vegetation in the
west central portion of the site and proposed a proper use of the wetland
area in the east central portion of the site.
Staff's criticism of the plans relate primarily to the apparent need for set-
back variances and the location of exposed parking areas. The PRD section
of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 35 foot setback for buildings and parking
from all property boundaries. The proposed plan violates this setback on
-all four sides. We believethat building setback variances along Delaney
Boulevard are reasonable due to the curvature of the street. However, we
believe that the two buildings along Cahill should be adjusted by providing
smaller unit sizes to meet the 35 foot setback. Similarly, the pool building
should be adjusted to meet this setback from the north boundary.
Staff is also concerned with the location of exposed parking. The two
parking areas along Delaney are located entirely %,.ithin the setback area.
Also, the driveway entrances to these par•kinc! areas exhibit poor- site distances
for Delaney traffic. Likewise, the parking zrr-ea on the east side is within
the setback area and abuts Cahill Road. It should be rioted that this parking
area was not shown on the preliminary Flan.
I
4-/:1 IU braemar Associates
Page 2
In addition to these concerns, Staff also notes that a "concept" landscape
plan has been submitted. The ordinance requires a detailed landscape plan
and plant schedule. We agree that it is difficult to prepare such a detailed
plan with this site due to the abundance of existing vegetation which may be
preserved. However, a more detailed plan should be prepared prior to
final approval by the Council. Also, the exterior materials on all buildings
should be noted on the plan.
Therefore, we recommend overall plan approval with the understanding that
the above noted features should be modified. Approval is recommended
conditioned on final platting and subdivision dedication.
Q
o_
z- Ld . i -_
_ 1 1 .:�. .-rte , .M j /,��•� J
z
- __ � � %� �; \ 3, —�;\ —_ / >� ,� _rte''✓ - .:J /;.
ti►r� FLA N
_T_ 9. J�
S? =0 , •F-
• / ! \ ✓ter j '�:. ':~: _ �•" — — 11 �� 1 � -
- L�rwl
:.\
! LIVING.' -\ cu % r
Tif .1
- Imo' • �"" - _ -- �'�t -e.r , -:._i_ -_ — r: � *Y/ `— -- - R,e�M i� 200 �. �i-
� � � 'a _— ter;•'.•..•' •� ss ' , E�+7�Y - .' � .. �� '
.1 r:.: �`„ • • �` �R ,�• ,off. .°•. ?: *, `� �1i ' ✓' � - - �\ - •+-__ -..._
• it _ :., � V I �:•;
r ...A
r �
I
ii
L
i
BOND
vJ1:, e ' •r
NWC ltr LfGCK
ti• F
f S'- - � , 4 �s3 �ItSk "Gr 7r'�, < :.:.' a �ri � �,arti)r•'. _ _ _ - �p. ��
Z 1 J v_ 1 '� �5 If4 tl -7 kv� •N ~�
a Q i C. I' � ,. � ' t ��' � `4�:Y " \ ✓f 'T � 1 fir'`
Y.
1 Id
Ai
[a � may" ���•� :� !Y :"` ;. i'�,�"�1��, d _ VrvVi ..J _�•� f� {y� �.•,.. 4J
l
J2 UNitc A � -�
A A
tea t ,
��` �.c' �j t`� A ;�'a p t,L•. , it['R� -, �,� r�Yr �'L•.tit 4l �' :- '
� -'(,- �5a. 'J r _ �� -:t:�V , 7 �. rt��'l'r � <- d - .�1*•' _, .T I
Pf'�I_�'- ?-- - - - - --
'r!rr VIM,. ft:f• r/l T. " AC
;we ;ctti I _.71�C`I %G 2 EoItc,rl3e `YFB I F''Li'N:i : EI'D--S
--
P..aS
nNtfi;c.rLz
-
�. iim 2 G 12 1b?P,L I II(r
TC TPLG n 54
N' r,,71
1
- -----------
AA
Wk
uj,
- AL
4
" 7
Wt�
I'L UNITS
.- iz,
No
TF!ll
Tr
ed re
rc
4r
pr
F'I K I TT "r 7iNG p;
KIN,
LVAI T: -
/N -,.
T?
LI
F'I K I TT "r 7iNG p;
KIN,
LVAI T: -
/N -,.
T?
I _
-A --
I I I
I }- �
FA
. 1 I _ 1
+ _' `__ = 111 --- -- 7T
L t T -Nfu
--- - -f1�N --- APf�F7mrNTS
L
s
`„1-
M E M O R A N D U M -
DATE:. March 16, 1983
TO: Ken Rosland, City Manager
FROM: Gordon Hughes, City Planner
SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Budaet
For Program Year IX
,J�E
A public hearing before the City Council has been scheduled for March 21, 1983,
to consider.a proposed budget for Year IX of the CDBG program. Notice of the
hearing and the proposed budget was published in the March 9, 1983, edition
of the Edina Sun.
Program regulations and citizen participation requirements for the program remain
substantially the same as last year. Only one public hearing is required at the
local level. Following approval of the budget by the City Council, the Planning
Area Citizen Advisory Committee ( PACAC) reviews the budget and forwards it
to the Hennepin County Board. Edina is represented on the PACAC by Donna
Scudder.
Edina's planning allocation for Year IX is 214,049 or 6.34 % of. the Urban
Hennepin County total of $3,752,000, or about 101A less than last year.
Staff has prepared the following budget for City Council consideration:
Activity
Rehabilitation of Private Property
Assistance to low and moderate income
housing development
Handicapped access improvements to
public properties
Non - profit housing sponsor
Public Services (H.O.M.E.)
Tota I
B udget
$30,000
$107,449
$50,000
$20,000
$6,600
$214,049
All activities proposed represent projects continued from Year VIII or earlier.
Rehabilitation of private property, assistance to low and moderate income housing
development and handicapped access improvements have been budget items for
several years. The non - profit housing sponsor project was initiated last year to
assist with the development of housing in the Windfield - Laukka mixed -use project.
The public services project was also started in Year Vlll to assist South Hennepin
Human Services Council through its H.O.M.E. program, to provide maintenance and
repair service to senior citizens in Edina. They have indicated to Staff that they
wish to continue to receive this assistance.
IO - `;: -�-%i& - l,�i -/4/
(OFFICIAL PUBLICATION)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
Notice is hereby given that Hennepin County and the City of Edina,
Minnesota, pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974, as amended, are sponsoring a public hearing on March 21, 1983
at 7:00 P.M., at Edina City Hall Council Chambers,
4801 West 50th Street, Edina, Minnesota, to obtain the views of citizens
on local and Urban County housing and community development needs and
to provide citizens with the opportunity to comment on the Urban Hennepin
County Statement of Objective /1982 and the City of Edina's proposed use
of its Year IX Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
planning allocation of $214,049.
The City of Edina is proposing to fund the following activities with Year IX
Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds starting July 1, 1983.
Activity
Rehabilitation of Private Property
Assistance to low and moderate income
housing development
- Handicapped access improvements to
public property
Non - profit housing sponsor
Public Services
Budget
$30,000
$107,449
$50,000
$20,000
$6,600
For additional information on proposed activities, level of funding and
program objectives contact the City of Edina, 4801 West 50th Street, Edina,
Minnesota., (612)927-8861.
The public hearing is being held in accord with the Urban Hennepin County
Joint Cooperation Agreement pursuant to M.S., 471.59.
* Please publish in the Edina Sun on Wednesday, March 9, 1983.
* Please send two (2) Affidavits of Publication
5500 Halifax Avenue C.
.diva, linnesota 55424
_'arch 15, 1983
Mr. C. 'Jayne Courtney
?Mayor, City of Edina
4313 Eton Place
Edina, .N 55424
Dear 'sir. Courtney,
I am writing to you because I am concerned about the
continuing expansion of Grace Church over an established
residential neighborhood.
This year an entire block of homes will be converted to a
parkin; lot. Our neighbors on 'Hali -fax Avenue who valued
their location among single family homes suddenly find
themselves next to a busy -drivewatr. Their properties have
much less privacy, and considerably more exposure to noise,
trespass and vandalism as a direct result of this change..
The site plan at city hall indicates the church auditorium
may be expanded from 900 to 1700 seats. To meet cede
requirements for par1:ing, a parking ramp has been discussed.
If I understand the 2,dina Planning Department correc uly, a
par1,cing ramp is permissloie in a single family residential
area, as long as the ramp does not exceed 40 feet in height.
It really upsets me and myr neighbors to have such major
changes made that affect our neighborhood without our having
anything to say ab.out it.
It has become clear to me that the current city ordinances
work to favor this conversion of R -1 dwellings to institutional
use. The-ordinances have provided no protection, not even a
hearing, for homeowners who prefer that adjoining properties
remain residential.
I believe the ordinances need to be changed. Conversion of
R -1 properties to non - residential use for any reason should
require: 1) public notice
2) public hearings
3) decision resting with elected officials who
are responsible to the community
I believe homeowners deserve this protection.
As mayor you are in.a position to influence the law making
process. I would appreciate your response to my concerns,
and your advice as to hour to proceed to get changes in the
ordinances.
Sincerely,
iiary R. Thatcher
a. • y
mmr-7
JOEDINA
1801 WEST 50TH STREET. EDINA. MINNESOTA 55424
612- 927 -8861
March 21, 1983
Mrs. Mary R. Thatcher
5309 Halifax Avenue South
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Mrs. Thatcher:
Thank you for your letter of;March 15, 1983.
If you have been following Council activities pertaining to
the church's expansion, you will know that I am fully supportive
of your position in this matter. I do think that we need to
have a better procedure by which neighbors surrounding the church
in a residential area have an opportunity to have input into the
process.
. I believe that when the last proposals by the church were
considered- it was the Council's direction to its staff that we
should evaluate at this time our ordinances insofar as permitting
this type of activity.
I would encourage you to coordinate with Gordon Hughes,
our Edina City Planner, to voice your concerns which I know are
shared by many.
Again, thank you for your expression of interest and taking
the time to correspond with me.
Very truly yours,
Frederick S. Richards
FSR /dp /d
cc: W r. Ken Rosland
Mr. Gordon Hughes
TO: Mayor.and City Council
FROM: Francis Hoffman, City Engineer_ _ __
VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager /I
SUBJECT: Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation - Report I
Background: The City of Edina recently completed the Infiltration /Inflow study of
the sanitary sewer. system. It was discovered that some sub -areas of the system have
considerable infiltration and inflow. It was determined in the study that it would
potentially be cost effective to correct the major deficiencies. These corrections
should result in lower charges from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission due
to lower sewage flows and rehabilitate the sewer system.
Project: The.City staff proposes to start an initial evaluation and rehabilitation
in District 2 as shown on the attached map.
The project proposed will have as its objectives: to reduce sewer flows and re-
habilitate the sewage collection system in District 2.
The project will utilize existing manpower from the engineering and sanitary sewer
staff. Outside technical assistance will be needed occasionally for data analysis,
televising sewer lines and flow monitoring.
The project will consist of the following acitvities:
1. Manhole Inspection - used to identify specific infiltration /inflow area.
2. Building Inspection - used to document inflow related items, such as:
roof drains, area /yard drains, sump pumps and foundation drains. Many
of those items are not usually cost - effective to correct.
3. Flow Monitoring - used to establish.flow rates at specific points in
the system.
4. Televising Sewer - used in selected locations to determine need for
rehabilitation.
5. Storm Sewer Flooding - used to determine if cross - connections exist
between storm and sanitary sewer and identification of inflow source.
6. Smoke Testing - used to determine sources of infiltration /inflow. Very
effective method done with smoke generators which are odorless, non - toxic,
and non - staining.
As these items are completed, some of which are dependent upon completion of the
others, an anlysis and report will be completed as to the necessary rehabilitation
of the system.
The final step will be the actual re- construction activities which vary from grouting
manholes to sewer line rehabilitation.
The first six items are estimated to require 800 to 1000 manhours of activity. The
initial expenditure of sewer funds are estimated at $30,000.00. These funds are part
of the funds programmed annually for such items as lift station repair and sewer line
rehabilitation.
Page II
The staff will make a presentation on our proposal during the council meeting.
FJH:Im
3/18/83
I
1
Ll
INFILTRATION /INFLOW ANALYSIS
SEWER BASINS
EDINA, MINNESOTA
ow
c' i i
FIGURE I
CITY OF EDINA
4801 W. 50TH STREET
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
ON VACATION OF EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND UTILITY PURPOSES
FOR PORTION OF AMUNDSON ROAD
' 3 AND
w� DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN
LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, CROSSTOWN HILL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, will meet at the Edina City:.Hall, 4801 W. 50th St., on April 18, 1983,
at 7:00 p.m., for the purpose of holding public hearings on each of the proposed
vacations of the following easements for utility and road purposes and for drain-
age and utility purposes described as follows:
That part of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 8, Town-
ship 116, Range 21, described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest
corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Braemar Oaks; thence Southwesterly at an angle
of 1060 49' 58" as turned clockwise from the South line of said Lot 1
to an intersection with a line 818 feet Northerly of and parallel with
C./ the South line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4; thence
West a distance of 62.69 feet; thence Northeasterly to the Southeast
corner of Outlot A, Braemar Oaks; thence Easterly to the point of
beginning. All according to the United States Government survey, and
to the recorded plat, Hennepin County_ (for road and utility purposes);
and
All of the 5 foot wide drainage and utility easement within Lots 1 and
Z 2, Block 1, Crosstown Hill, lying Southeasterly of the 10 foot wide
drainage and utility easement lying parallel with and abutting the
Northwesterly line of said Lots 1 and 2 (drainage and utility purposes);
All persons who desire to be heard with respect to the question of whether or not
the above proposed easement vacations are in the.public interest and should be
made shall be heard at said time and place. The Council shall consider the
extent to which such proposed easement vacations affect,existing easements
within the area.of. the proposed vacation and the extent to which the vacation
affects the authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning or
controlling electric or telephone poles and lines, gas and sewer lines, or water
pipes, mains, and hydrants on or under the area of the proposed vacation, to
continue maintaining the game or to enter upon such easement area or portion
thereof vacated to maintain, repair, replace, retnove,.or otherwise attend
thereto, for the purpose of specifying, in any such vacation resolution, the
extent to which any or all of any such easements, and such authority to maintain,
and to enter upon the area of the proposed vacation, shall continued.
BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL.
Florence B. Hallberg
City Clerk
�I
cl�
tt
(J
----------- 7
ILI
r
March 18, 1983
To: The Mayor and City Council
From: Florence B. Hallberg, City Clerk
Subject: Renewal of Beer, Club Liquor and Sunday Liquor Licenses
The following license applications should be approved for the year
April 1, 1983 to April 1, 1984:
On -Sale Beer Licenses
Braemar Golf Course
The Brothers
Daytons Valley View Room
Donaldson's Fifth Floor
Edina American Legion Post 471
Edina Country Club
The Empress Restaurant
Gus Young's Biltmore Lanes
Interlachen Country Club
J.P's Restaurant
Kings Court
LeBistro, Inc.
Los Primos
Monterey Jacks
Normandale Golf, Inc.
Original Pancake House
Rigotto's Pizza
Southdale Bowl
Czechuan Star
T.J.'s Restaurant
Off Sale Bcer Licenses
Applebaum's Food Market
Byerly Foods of Edina
Jerry's Foods
Kenny's Market
Q Petroleum
Red Owl Country Store
S'lluperamerica 4047
1/ennisuh�f �Lla�Ked-
Club Liquor and Sunday
Liquor Licenses
Edina Country Club
Interlachen Country Club
Please approva subject to approval of the Police Department. (All
applications have not yet been checked out.)
HERBST & THUE. LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2030 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER
ADRzAN E. HERHST 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
DANIEL D. TaUE
GARY R. MATZ BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA b5431
JOHN F. GIHHS
ANN C. VIITAI.A
LEGAL ASSISTANT March 7, 1983
Carl Jullie
City Manager
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Kenneth E. Rosland
City Manager
City.of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
James F. Miller
City Manager
City of Minnetonka
14600 Minnetonka Boulevard
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
RE: Our File Number 81 -2057G
Gentlemen:
TELEPHONE
(612) 835 -2434
William P. Craig
City Manager
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Enclosed herewith are the documents necessary for the
ordinance amendment clarifying the initial service area and
line extension policy.
The draft ordinance included in this material incorporates
those additions requested by the Commission at its recent meeting.
We are awaiting amended maps from the company. When we receive
those maps, they will be delivered immediately to you.
Should you have any questions or if I may be of any assis-
tance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Adrian E. Herbst
AEH nd
Enclosures
cc: Ralph B. Campbell, III
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS OF FACTS,
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION
(HEREINAFTER "COMMISSION ")
WHEREAS, the Commission was formed by the City Councils of
Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Minnesota
(hereinafter "Parties ") in May, 1982 to coordinate the admi-
nistration and enforcement of the respective cable communications
franchises of the parties; to report and recommend to the parties
relative to the operation of their respective cable com-
munications franchisees; and to perform such other duties as are
required; and
WHEREAS, based upon the authority granted to it, the
Commission has undertaken its responsibilities and, pursuant to
Article VII, Section 3 subd. (a)(i), of the Joint and Cooperative
Agreement the Commission is empowered to make policy decisions
and recommendations to the parties on the enforcement of laws,
regulations and ordinances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, at a regular meeting of the
Commission, that the Commission does hereby make the following:
I. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. In October, 1982, a question was presented to the
Commission and its Operating Committee as to when cable com-
munications service would be provided by the franchisee,
Minnesota Cablesystems- Southwest (hereinafter "Minnesota ") to a
certain area of Minnetonka defined as census tract 263.01. The
area at issue is zoned residential and, for all relevant time,
has been zoned residential.
B. In response to that question, the Operating Committee of
the Commission requested a legal opinion from the Commission's
legal counsel (hereinafter Counsel) as to the duties and obliga-
tions of Minnesota. In preparing the legal opinion, Counsel for
the Commission spoke with representatives of Minnesota and met
with attorneys representing Minnesota. Counsel reviewed
Minnesota's proposal dated June 16, 1980, the Cable Television
Information Center's (hereinafter "CTIC ") preliminary report
dated September 4, 1980, Minnesota's response to that report
dated September 24, 1980, CTIC's final report dated October 17,
1980 and the franchise ordinance.
C. Counsel provided an opinion letter to the Operating
Committee dated November 16, 1982. That opinion letter responded
to two specific questions.
-1-
D. Counsel first addressed the question -of whether census
tract 263.01 was within the initial service area as proposed by
Minnesota. The opinion concluded that the initial service area
consisted of all residentially zoned areas contained within the
boundaries of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and
Richfield. This conclusion was substantiated by Minnesota's pro -
posal.at Form H, page lA of 5 and the Minnesota response to the
CTIC preliminary report at Section V, page'll.
E. Counsel then addressed the question of what installation
charge would be applicable to residences within census tract
263.01. The opinion concluded that to the extent the density in
census tract 263.01 and the surrounding area is less than forty
(40) homes per mile, cable communications service may be provided
under the line extension policy that would result in an addi-
tional Forty Dollars ($40.00) to Eighty Dollars ($80.00) per
installation charge.
F. . Counsel observed that the Minnesota proposal distin-
guished between those areas with a density of forty (40) homes
per mile or greater, those areas with a density of less than
forty (40) homes per mile but still served by city sewer and
water and those areas without city sewer and water. Counsel
concluded that the latter category would not be applicable
because census tract 263.01 is served by city sewer and water and
that Minnesota, in its response to CTIC's preliminary report, had
limited the category to homes in areas not presently zoned
residential.
G. The applicable installation rate for census tract 263.01
has been a source of considerable debate and differences of opi-
nion. Minnesota expressed a concern relative to the cost of
construction in the above - mentioned area. A concern was
expressed that to provide service at other than a cost repre-
senting time and materials would result in a cross - subsidization
by other locations. Further, the above - mentioned area has been
described as an area not served by city water and sewer as con-
templated by Minnesota since those services are provided by a
municipality other than the City of Minnetonka itself.
H. Shortly thereafter, a similar question was raised
regarding certain portions of Eden Prairie. Counsel for the City
of Eden Prairie provided that city his legal opinion that
Minnesota has the responsibility to cable all areas of that city
that were zoned residential at the time the franchise ordinance
was passed and that Minnesota may charge additional costs where
the density per mile is less than forty (40) homes.
I. On January 6, 1983, the Operating Committee, the
Franchise Administrator and Counsel met with representatives of
Minnesota and Mr. Wayne Popham, counsel for Minnesota.
-2-
J. Mr. Popham explained that Minnesota intended to provide
service to most, but not all, parts of the parties under an
Initial Service Area policy. The remaining areas would be served
under a line extension policy. Requiring all homes zoned resi-
dentially to be cabled would necessarily eliminate the need for a
line extension policy.
K. Mr. Popham stated that to serve all residentially zoned
homes would require One Million One Hundred Four Thousand Six
Hundred Ninety -One Dollars ($1,104,691.00) in construction
investment. The cost of subscriber installations and converters
were not included in that amount. The $1,104,691.00 would serve
slightly less than one percent (1 %) of the homes in the Southwest
area whereas approximately Thirteen Million Dollars ($13,000,000.00)
was required to serve the homes already cabled.
L. Minnesota then proposed a compromise whereby forty per-
cent (40 %) of the densest areas remaining to be cabled would be
served as part of the Initial Service Area and the remaining
homes would receive service under a clearly articulated line
extension policy. The proposed compromise is as follows:
1. The seventy -six (76) homes listed as Area 1 in
Exhibit A and the one hundred sixty -two (162) homes
listed as Area 13 would be served under the Initial
Service Area policy at a cost of One Hundred
Fity -Five Thousand Dollars ($155,000.00) with no
significant impact on the rates.
2. The remaining three hundred seventy -two (372) homes
in Areas 2 through 12 and 14 through 20 would be
served under a line extension policy based on a
cost sharing formula.
M. Mr. Jullie, Eden Prairie, requested time to seek-direc-
tion from his City Council since Eden Prairie would be signifi-
cantly affected.
N. Mr. Craig, Hopkins, stated that he believed a mistake
had been made on the part of Minnesota and that a mistake of this
kind should not be strictly enforced. To strictly enforce the
ordinance would not be in the best interests of the parties.
O. Mr. Miller, Minnetonka, stated that he preferred to deal
with the line extension issue as it affects the entire Southwest
area rather than dealing on a case -by -case basis with only a few
of the areas. Mr. Miller objected to the process to the extent
that it focused closely upon the cross - subsidization issue.
P. Mr. Nollenberger, Richfield, reminded the Committee that
rates had been a weight of ten percent (10 %) in the decision-
-3-
making process during franchising. Mr. Nollenberger, too,
believed that Minnesota had made a mistake.
Q. Mr. Rosland, Edina, expressed his support for the.
compromise.
R. On Tuesday, January 18, 1983, at a regularly scheduled
meeting, the Eden Prairie City Council discussed the issue and
the compromise offer. Also in attendance were Ralph B. Campbell,
III, Franchise Administrator, Adrian E. Herbst and Gary R. Matz,
counsel for the Commission. Individual council members
acknowledged that they understood throughout the franchising pro-
cess that not all areas of Eden Prairie would be cabled initially
and to do so would constitute an undue burden on Edina, Hopkkins
and Richfield. The Council voted to accept the compromise
offered by Minnesota.
S. The Operating Committee met again on Friday, January 21,
1983, to receive the recommendation of the Eden Prairie City
Council and to discuss with representatives of Minnesota a draft
of the proposed line extension policy. Certain changes were made
at that time. A copy of the final line extension ordinance is
set forth in Exhibit B.
T. Based on the foregoing, it is the Commission's finding
that the proposed compromise is not inconsistent with the intent
of the parties; the compromise is- consistent with the goal of the
Commission of providing cable communications service to all
Southwest residents in the timeliest and most economical manner
possible; and the compromise is in accordance with the minimum
requirements of the parties' Request for Proposal.
II. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. The Council should accept this report from the
Commission.
B. The Council should adopt the ordinance set forth in
Exhibit B clarifying Minnesota's line extension policy and
amending certain provisions of the cable communications franchise
ordinance.
EXHIBIT A
2
E HOPKINS
MINNETONKA
EDINA
9 1 X 9 f « \ 10
10 RICHFIELD
Q \
10
DEN -PRAIRIE 14 _
UG
11 10
11
13
11
11
15
i
i
MLN'=N KA
Sao Sheet
ibt,tl (Horrws on
T:a'LS Sheet Affe ted)
1 Area is presently not designed. City water 75
and sewer is supplied from Wayzata. Trunk
nk
will have to be routed outside franchise
area or through private ccm- ercial easements
and undeveloped land.
2 Presently not designed - will require 1583' of 3
system to feed.
3 Area fed from Hopkins trunk. ;-buld have required 3
a minimun of 500' U.G. through private easements
to feed from Minnetonka trunk.
4 Presently not designed - will require 989' of 1
system to feed.
5 Presently not designed - will require 67.1' of
system to feed.
6 Presently not designed - city water and sewer
are not in the area. T:-buld require 5639' of
system to feed.
7 1-bbile Home nark fed fr-an Pbokins trL,.nk. Area is 3-:
isolated frct-n 1irnetonka trzA by extensive ce:n-
mercial area. Over 6800' of system, primarily
U.G., would have been required through ca-r- ercial
easements to reach area from �]innetonka trunk.
Currently not built because area has been rezoned
coamercial and mobile homes will be removed.
�3 Area is ore:!=inantly co.^,mercial. It -would rernrire 8
acproxi-rately 6426' of aerial system to feed t, e
ha-, :-s.
5 -1
5 -4 .
4 -2
4 -3
4 -1
4 -4
22 -4 (2)
K56 -29
20 -3
30 -4
31A -4 (6)
32A -4 (3)
r :z5 -31 (27)
L56- 91(27)
34A -1 (3)
34A -3 (1)
14A -4 (4 )
EDLN PRAIRIE
C
Area Minter
9 Area is aresently not designed - city
water and sewer are not in the area..
10 Area is presently not designed - city
water and sewer are not in the area
C
11 Area is oresently not designed - city
water and sewer are not in the area.
f
Lao Sheet
Total
(!-Toms on
:mimes
Sheet elF_`ected
23
6-2(2) 5-3R)
6-1(3) 5 -1(1)
3-2(3) 5-4(3)
4 -1 (1) 4-4(l)
3-3(l) 4A-1(2)
87
K57-18(5)
'
K57 -19(8)
K57 -29(4)
K57-29(9)
K57 -30(3)
K57- 39(12)
K37-40(4)
K57 -58(1)
K57-60(2)
K57-70(6)
L57 -51(1)
L57 -61(4)
L57 -71(3)
L37 -91(5)
L56 -11(4)
L36-21(5)
L36 -31(2)
3-1(2)
210
7-4(2)
7A-2(2)
7A-4(l)
13-1(4)
18-2(2)
18-3(l)
18A-1(2)
19A-2(3)
19A -3(5)
19A-4(2)
2O 1 (3)
i
2-3A-2(3)
,DA-3(27)
21A-3(l)
21-40)
21:►-1 (1)
30-1G)
.33 - ?(A-7)
3.0-11(4)
30 -4 (22)
311 -1 G;)
30A -•I (5)
iJL:1 t I< -Aii�-
Page 2
Area Nu.: Jeer
11 (cunt)
12
13
14
15
Mao Sheet
'Ibtal (Homes oil
H(Imes Sheet Affected)
Area contains homes that have beean designed, 91
and.will be built although city water and
sewer are not in the area.
Area contains hc.-,,es that have been designed 108
but will not be built, because city water
and sewer are not in the area.
7-vo isolated pockets of hams located in 16
co: rnercial area.
Area is presently not designed - city water 48
and sewer are not in the area.
31-2(l)
29-1(3)
29 -2(21)
29A -1 (4)
29A -3 (7)
29A -4 (6 )
28-3(3)
23A -2(5)
23A -3(1)
28A-4 (2 )
K58 -6 (9)
K39 -7 (1)
ti58 -16(5)
v3 -35 (3)
K59 -37 (6)
16A -2 (1)
16A -3 (1)
17-4(3)
17A -1 (6)
17A -4 (8)
20-1(8)
20-4R)
21-2(33)
21 -3(29)
2LA -2 (1)
20i-1 (9)
20A -4(29)
21A -2(24)
21A -3 (3)
21A -1(24)
21A -4(20)
K57 -89(3)
,57 -78 (3)
X--)7-79(6)
i,37 -33 (3)
.,53-49(4)
:::)9 -5•) (2)
X53 -59 (4)
K5,N63 (1)
K53 -60 (2)
Kc ° -80 (2)
L.5.3 -51 (3)
L.5 " -51 (5 )
L58- 71(12)
L53 -81(7)
1
:'age 3
—
.•Tap Sheet
Area Number
T )tal
(H3a. s on
!' :res
Sheet Affected)
16
Presently not designed - will rewire
1
15A -3(1)
393' of s%-stem to feed.
17
Presently not designed - new addition to
7
8 -3(2)
Round Lake Estates. Five homes nave been
8A -2(5)
built since su7r,Lr, 1982. It will take
about 2640' of U.G. system to feed.
18
Presently not designed - will require approx.
4
K57 -30(1)
4000' of system to feed.
L57 -31(1)
19
Isolated pocket of homes - city sewer and
K57 -40(2)
water are not in the.area.
6
K57 -98(6)
20
Area has thr ,)lated `•.cues. It would
3
15-2(l)
require at lam_._.. "Al' of aerial system
16-1(2)
to feed. Area is pri•-iarily commercial.
1
SOUIHWEST
Dec rater 16, 1982
MEMORANDUM
e Pco IV\
1.6.83
ADDENUM
TO: Gary Mizga
FRGS: Mike Stark
RE: Cost SunTkry to Provide Service to Hares Remaininq Undesicned
in Five Cities
Please refer to areas as outlined in
the updated report of
December
16, 1982.
Plant Required
Project
Area 0
Ar
W.
Hares
Cost
Cost/Unit
Hanes /,%,;
1
14,272
3,989
76
$70,883
S 933
22.0
2
4
1,583
0
3
5,097
1,699
10.0
5
989
674
0
1
3,184
3,184
5,3
6
4,631
0
1,008
1.
7
2,170
21,210
2,170
3,030
7:8
8
6,426
0
8
20,690
2,586
6.6
6.6
9
19
9.951
2,655
23
48,634
2,114
9,6
37,791
_ 20,471
87
249,619
2,869
7.9
11
113,529
16,954
318
471,492
1,483
12.9
13
Included in
Area
11
14
15
7,356
6,559
22
64,678
2,940
8.3
26,148
4,014
48
109,276
2,277
8,4
16
17
593
0
1
1,909
1,909
8.9
18
742
2,640
8
18,889
2,361
12.5
19
1,823
111
4
6,563
1.641
10.9
Included in
Area
14
- 20
2,841
200
3
10,397
3,466
5.2
TUTAl::
229,349
58,601
610
1,104,691
11811
11.2
43.44 miles
11.10 miles
The above
cost is based
upon budget
figures below:
Cost/Mile
AE
UG
$17,000
$33,000
i)S /mlk
EXHIBIT B
ORDINANCE NO. // .Z U -A
AN ORDINANCE SETTING FORTH A DESCRIPTION OF
THE FACILITIES TO BE PROVIDED BY MINNESOTA
CABLESYSTEMS - SOUTHWEST, A MINNESOTA LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP; AMENDING THE LINE EXTENSION
POLICY OF MINNESOTA CABLESYSTEMS - SOUTHWEST;
PRESCRIBING UNIFORM MONTHLY RATES AND OTHER
CHARGES AND INSTALLATIONS AS SET FORTH HEREIN;
AND AMENDING THE EXHIBITS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORDAINS:
1. That Article III, Section 4 of Ordinance No. be
amended to read as follows:
SECTION 4. FACILITIES.
The Grantee shall construct, maintain and continue to provide
all facilities and equipment set forth in the Offering or as
otherwise provided in Article V, Section 2 and Exhibits A and B
hereto, including, but not limited, to, the headend, hubs,
distribution system, studios, equipment and other facilities.
Grantee's plan, as set forth in the Offering, for implementing
the construction, utilization and.maintenance of these facili-
ties, including its plans for accommodating future growth and
changing needs and desires, shall be fully and timely performed
2. That Article V, Section 2, be amended to read as
follows:
SECTION 2. LINE EXTENSION POLICY.
=a : :cc ^c' 6 6iE eF36-in—n th ^e
arear. net -ne -1 ude�
-1-
€ellewing -equ --_- nts:
A. Residenees leeated eutside the initial ser-VI -ee
area will - b•e- previ-ded ser-viee upen-- aeeeptanee --ef a quete
f em Grantee. The quete shall net exeeed the eest to
GEanteey ealeulated en a time and material basis, of
e tending the - eeble- and eeessarry -eable equipment te- seri =ree
the residenee.
�� —Any nenresident-i-al user requesting -9
will be- pravided serviee upen aeaeptanee -ef-a -quote flue.
Grantee. The quete shall set- exe- eed- t#;e- cest to
Grantee, ealeulatEd on- -A -ti-me and- ma -tpr -j R! basis -, Af
e3Etending the eable and neeessaEy eagle equipment to
Er-yiee said user,
A. Service will be provided to residents of the City
in areas with an average density less than forty (40)
dwelling units per street mile or cable mile, whichever pro-
vides the greater benefit to the subscribers, as determined
by City, based upon the cost contribution formula defined
below.
Residents of the City in areas with an average density
of at least forty (40) dwelling units per street mile or
cable mile, whichever provides the greater benefit to the
subscribers, as determined by City, will not be required to
make a cost contribution pursuant to the cost contribution
formula below in order to receive service. The monthly
charge for cable service in the extended area shall be the
-2-
same as elsewhere in the system.
B. The cost contribution to be allocated to each
interested subscriber in the extended area will be deter-
mined as follows:
1. Grantee shall estimate the total cost of
constructing and maintaining for three (3) years from
the date service is available, the line extension to be
constructed in the extended areas. Total construction
cost is defined as including all labor and material
costs necessary to construct ar.activate that part of
It
the system commencing at the nearest point of existing
lant and running to and within the extended area.
2. The standard cost per dwelling unit in the
extended area shall be determined by dividing the total
from (1) above by 40, being the standard minimum den-
sity.
3. Grantee's contribution to the cost of the
line extension shall be determined by dividing the total
number of dwelling units in the extended area by the
number of miles in the extended area, and multiplying
the resulting number by the standard cost per dwelling
unit.
4. The difference between the total costs (1)
and the Grantee's contribution (3) is the total contri-
bution of the subscribers in the extended area.
5. The amount to be paid by each subscribing
ISC
resident shall be determined by dividing the total
residents' contribution from (4) above by the number of
persons subscribing to the service in the extended area.
C. Service under the line extension policy shall be
provided in accordance with the following procedure.
1. Residents in an area with an average density
of less than forty (40) dwelling units per street mile
or cable mile as determined above, who desire cable
service shall petition the Council for designation as
an extended area. The petition shall include a map
showing the dwelling units proposed to be included in
the designated extended area.
2. The Council shall by resolution designate the
dwelling units to be included in the extended area.
3. Upon designation of an extended area, Grantee
shall prepare a map indicating the trunk cable line
that will be constructed to serve the extended area and
shall estimate the combined total construction cost and
three (3) year maintenance cost for service to the
extended area (Section 2.B.1), the Grantee's contribu-
tion (Section 2.B.3), and the total contribution of the
subscribers (Section 2.B.4).
4. Residents within the extended area who wish
to become subscribers will have thirty (30) days to
commit to service, by executing and submitting a com-
mitment form to Grantee.
-4-
5. Grantee will estimate the cost to each
subscriber according to the formula in Section 2.B.5,
above. Grantee will notify Council and subscribers of
the subscriber cost estimate by U.S. mail.
6. Subscribers will have thirty (30) days from
the date of mailing of the subscriber cost estimate in
which to deposit the amount of the subscriber cost
estimate into an escrow account to be maintained by the
City.
7. If the total contribution of the subscribers
is deposited within the time period specified in B.6
above, Grantee shall construct the line extension.
Construction shall be completed and service made
available to the extension area within twelve (12)
months from the end of the subscriber contribution
deposit period.
8. Upon completion of the line extension
construction, the City will pay to Grantee all funds in
the escrow account.
9. Any resident who did not participate by ini-
tial subscriber contribution and who wishes to hook u
to the line extension within the first three (3) years
after service is commenced in the extended area must
deposit into an escrow account to be maintained by the
city clerk the amount of the subscriber cost estimate
deposited by original subscribers under paragraph 6
-5-
above. All such new contributions shall be held in
escrow until the end of the third year after service is
commenced in the extended area, at which time all funds
in escrow shall be divided equally and returned to the
then current subscribers.
At the end of the three (3) years following the
commencement of service to the extended area,.all new
subscribers in the extended area will be provided cable
television service under the same terms as all other
residents of the City.
D. Grantee shall hold the City and their respective
officers, agents, employees and representatives, harmless and
indemnified against any and all loss, costs, damage and
expense, including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, now
or hereafter incurred by it, and arising out of or due to, or
claimed to arise out of or be due to, this ordinance or the
process following by City in adopting this ordinance.
3. That Article VI, Section 4 of Ordinance No. be
amended to read as follows:
(1) Rates and charges charged by Grantee for monthly
service and instal at eH and other charges hereunder shall be
uniform, fair and reasonable and designed to meet all
necessary costs of service, including a fair rate of return
on the original cost, less depreciation, of the properties
devoted to such service (without regard to any subsequent
sale or transfer price or cost of such properties).
"•
Installation charges shall be made pursuant to Article V,
Section 2 and Exhibits A and B hereto.
4. That Article XIV, Section 2, paragraph H, be amended to
read as follows:
H. Each exhibit is a part of this Franchise and each
is specifically incorporated herein by reference. The exhi-
bits are as follows:
Amended Exhibit A - Map of Contruction by Area,
Including Time Schedule
Amended Exhibit B - Rate Schedule
5. That Exhibit B be amended by deleting Article I, Section
A, paragraph 5, as follows:
-7-
=a
AMENDED EXHIBIT B
GRANTEE SCHEDULE OF RATES
I. SUBSCRIBER NETWORK.
A. Basic Rates_
1. Tiers Standard
150 Ft. Aerial
Seniors &
Installation
Monthly Homebound
(First Outlet)
Tier 1 Universal Service. $19.95
Free Free
Converter not re-
quired for this
service.
Tier 2 Family Service.
Subscriber owns $19.95
$3.95 $3.36
converter.
Subscriber rents $19.95
Various Various
converter from
Grantee.
Tier 3 Full Service.
Subscriber owns $19.95
$5.95 $5.06
converter.
Subscriber rents $19.95
Various* Various*
converter from
Grantee.
Tier 3 Expended Service. $19.95
$10.95 $9.31
(Expanded) (Included
converter and unit).
2. Rates will remain constant for two
(2) years after com-
mencement of construction of System or until
completion of all
construction required by Article V, Section.l
of this Franchise,
whichever is longer as determined by City.
3. Subscribers will have the option of
renting various
types of converters as follows:
Grantee Converter Rate Schedule
Initial Monthly
Description
Rate
1. Block converter
$1.00
2. OAK L -35
$1.50
Description
3. Scientific Atlanta 6700
- set -up converter
- descrambler option
- remote control option
- addressable feature (not initially available)
Initial Monthly
Rate
$2.50
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
The rental rate shall be added to the appropriate base rate
shown in the table above if the subscriber rents the converter
from Grantee. 'Subscribers may choose to rent or buy converters
from sources other than the Grantee, however, a Grantee converter
or descrambler will be necessary for premium services.
4. The standard installation rate will include the instal-
lation of one hundred fifty (150) feet or less of aerial cable
drop to each subscriber dwelling within the initial service area.
Aerial installations within the initial service area in excess of
one hundred fifty (150) feet will be charged at cost on a time
and material basis. Underground installations will be charged
at cost on a time and material basis. Free standard installations
on Tiers 2 and.3 will.be.provided within the first thirty (30)
days of energizing newly completed construction areas in the
initial service area.
5. Senior citizen and homebound discounts of fifteen Dercent
(150) will be offered on standard installation and monthly service
of Tiers 2 and 3. The discount is available to all dwelling units
where the head of the household is a senior, sixty -two (62) years
of age or older, or homebound.
B. Extra Outlets.
*Installation (At)
time of initial
Installation Monthly
Tier 1 Converter not required. $10.00 each Free
Tier 2 Subscriber owns receiver. $10.00 each $1.95 each
Subscriber rents converter_ _ $10.00 each Various **
from Grantee.
Tier 3 Subscribers owns converter $10.00 each Various **
from Grantee.
*Each outlet installaed after the initial installation will be
$14.95 each.
* *Same converter rental option as provided for under Section IA
of this Exhibit B.
-2-
C. Reconnection.
Charges for reconnection of existing installations shall be
$14.95 for each reconnection.regardless of the number of outlets.
D. Commercial Rates for Subscriber Network Services.
These rates will be subject to negotiation and will depend
on the number of outlets required and the type of services se-
lected. A typical commercial rate for department store requesting
ten (10) outlets on Tier 3 with no converters and no premium pay
would be:
Installation (at cost on a time and material basis)
Monthly Rate
E. FM Rates.
1st outlet
$15.00
2nd outlet
$10.00
3rd outlet
$ 5.00
Additional
outlets
$ 4.00
FM service is included in the rate structures for Tier 2 and
Tier 3.
F. Multiple Dwelling Rates.
1. Rates will be negotiated depending on the type of service
requested and the number of dwelling units served. Discounts are
generally negotiated for Tiers 1, 2, and 3, and subscribers have
the option to pay individually for premium services.
2. Typical Percentage Discounts for Tier 3 Service.
Low rise (fewer-than four stories
with no elevator) Fewer than 25 units - 5%
More than 25 units - 10%
High rise
30 to 49 units - 100
50 to 99 units 15%
100 to 199 units - 20%
200 units upwards - 25%
3. If the multiple dwelling is occupied by only senior
citizens or homebound persons or both, both the multiple dwelling
discount and the seniors and homebound discount will apply to the
monthly basic cable rate.
-3-
G. Miscellaneous Provisions Regarding Converters.
1. No deposit will be charged on the rental of Grantee
converters. Grantee, however, reserves the right to institute a
converter deposit if excessive loss or damage to the converter
units is experienced.
2. The various monthly converter rental rates include the
replacement and /or repair of defective units.
_._ 3. Subscribers renting. Grantee converters will have the
option to buy them at a price based on the type of converter and
length of time the converter has been rented.
H. Premium Services.
1. Premium service rates shall be as follows:
Monthly
Home Theater Network
$3.95
Home Box Office
7.50
CINEMAX
7.50
The Movie Channel
7.50
Showtime
7.50
Premiere
7.50
2. A $1.00 per month discount will be offered to subscribers
taking two (2) or more premium services other than Home Theater
Network at any one (1) time.
3. Lockout devices will be available free of charge.
4. Installation for premium services shall be free with
the initial installation of Tier 2 or 3 service. Thereafter, any
number of premium services added at the same time shall be added
at a maximum cost of $14.95.
5. Pay - per -view service shall be charged on the basis of
the event chosen. The range of charges is expected to be in the
order of $2.00 to $5.00 per event.
II.
SERVICES TO GOVERNMENT AND EDUCATION FACILITIES.
(INCLUDING LIBRARIES)
A. Installation FPPG_
1. One cable outlet (per facility) Free
2. More than one outlet (per facility) At cost of time
and materials
-4-
B. There shall be no monthly charge for Tier 1, 2 or 3.
III. RATES FOR HOME SECURITY STATUS MONITORING.
Monthly
$4.95 maximum
5.95 maximum
6.45 maximum
4.95 up de-
pending on
options taker
and provider
of system
B. This rate schedule is exclusive of other third party charges
that may be levied by emergency agencies or city licensing.
C. Promotional Discounts.
Rates in this Exhibit B are maximum rates. Grantee may allow
special discounts during promotional or other marketing activities.
IV. INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK.
A. Installation.
Grantee's installation charge will be based upon the cost of
material and labor. Grantee will provide an installation quote
free of charge on request of any potential institutional network
subscriber. Grantee may waive the installation charge.
Institutional'subscribers must supply any conduits, raceways,
trenches or other passages necessary to permit installation of
cable from the distribution line to the location(s) of the terminal
equipment.
B. Institutional Network Rates.
1. Institutional rates depend upon the use (video or date
channel), the number of points involved in the communication,
whether the communication is one -way or two -way, and whether the
use is full time (24 hours a day, 365 days a year) or only part
time (on an hourly basis). Packet data rates are calculated on a
use basis per one thousand (1,000) packets of data. One (1) packet
is eighty (80) characters or less.
-5-
Installation
A. Single: fire alarm, medic alert,
or security alert button.
$49.95 maximum
Double: any two services.
99.95 maximum
Triple: all three services.
119.95 maximum
Intrusion sensor system of
variable de-
Grantee or other provider
pending on
options taken
and provider
of system
Monthly
$4.95 maximum
5.95 maximum
6.45 maximum
4.95 up de-
pending on
options taker
and provider
of system
B. This rate schedule is exclusive of other third party charges
that may be levied by emergency agencies or city licensing.
C. Promotional Discounts.
Rates in this Exhibit B are maximum rates. Grantee may allow
special discounts during promotional or other marketing activities.
IV. INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK.
A. Installation.
Grantee's installation charge will be based upon the cost of
material and labor. Grantee will provide an installation quote
free of charge on request of any potential institutional network
subscriber. Grantee may waive the installation charge.
Institutional'subscribers must supply any conduits, raceways,
trenches or other passages necessary to permit installation of
cable from the distribution line to the location(s) of the terminal
equipment.
B. Institutional Network Rates.
1. Institutional rates depend upon the use (video or date
channel), the number of points involved in the communication,
whether the communication is one -way or two -way, and whether the
use is full time (24 hours a day, 365 days a year) or only part
time (on an hourly basis). Packet data rates are calculated on a
use basis per one thousand (1,000) packets of data. One (1) packet
is eighty (80) characters or less.
-5-
2. Rates for transmission capacity do not include the costs
of terminal equipment modulators, modems, and demodulators.
3. The institutional subscriber may be charged $20.00 per
month. For this charge, Grantee shall provide communications
security system equipment installed on the subscriber's premises
by Grantee. Such equipment may include addressable taps, trans-
mitter and filters or converter as required and allow access to
the special channels from 300 to 402 MHz.
4. Rates are as follows:
Type of Service
.a. For Video (6 MHz *) Channels, used full time
twenty -four hours ._a day)
1) One point to one other point on network
2) One point to one other point on network
and return
3)
One
point to all
other- points on.,network
4)
One
point to all
other points on
network
and
return
b.
For
Video (6 MHz)
Channels, used
part time
1)
From one point to
one other point
on network
2)
From one point to
one other point
on network
and
return
' Rate
$435.00 /month max.
865.00 /month max.
3,000.00 /month max.
6,000.00 /month max.
$7.50 /hour max.
15.00 /hour max.
3) From one poin.t_to all other points on network 50.00 /hour max.
4) From one point to all others points on net- 110.00 /hour max.
work and return
5) Special Teleconference Yearly Rate for one 1,800.00 /year max.
hour per business day
C. For data channel * *, full time (0.25 MHz)
1) From one point to one other point on network $36.00 /month max.
2).. From one point to one other point on net- 56.00 /month max.
work and return
3) From one point to all other points on network 232.00 /month max.
4) From one point to all other points on net- 366.00 /month max.
work and return
901:
* *Data channels may be used for analog signal transmission such
as audio.
Eric
Type-of Service
Rate
d.
For data channel,
full time
(0.50 MHz)
1)
From one point to
one
other
point on network
$52.00 /month
max.
2)
From one point to
one
other
point on network
100.00 /month
max.
and return
3)
From one point to
all
other
points on network
355.00 /month
max.
4)
From one point to
all
other
points on network
596.00 /month
max.
and return
e.
For data channel,
full time
(1.00 MHz)
1)
From one point to
one
other
point on network
$87.00 /month
max.
2)
From one point to
one
other
point on network
168.00 /month
max.
and return
3)
From one point to
all
other
points on network
614.00 /month
max.
4)
From one point to
all
other
points on netowrk
1,050.00 /month
max.
and return
f.
For data channel,
full
time
(2.00 MHz)
1)
From one point to
one
other
point on network
$157.00 /month
max.
2)
From one point to
one
other
point on network
308.00 /month
max.
and return
3)
From one point to
all
other
points on network
1,132.00 /month
max.
4)
From one point to
all
other
points on network
1,960.00 /month
max.
and return
g.
Packet Switching Data
Network
1)
Data transmission
charge
$1.00 /1,000 packets
2)
Connection to Packet Network
100.00
3)
Cable Access Processor
Lease
25.00 /month
_ *To..-
calcula.te.the rate-for
FM--video
channels, multiply -the .6 MHz
-..
rate
by 2.3.
* *Data channels may be used for analog signal transmission such
as audio.
Eric
VAS
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: March 15, 1983
TO: Ken Rosland
FROM: David A. Velde
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment to Ordinance No. 434
Recently we have received several requests for waivers of the deck
requirement for indoor whirlpools.
Presently, Edina City Ordinance No. 434 requires a four foot deck around
any swimming pool or special purpose pool. The Board of Building. Appeals
has granted waivers for this deck requirement around small, shallow, special
purpose pools such as whirlpools. This action is consistent with the position
taken by the Minnesota Department of Health for public special purpose pools.
At the urging of the Board of Building Appeals, we have drafted an amend-
ment to the Ordinance which will address this issue utilizing some very simple
criteria whereby this waiver may be granted by the Building Official.
We would like to have this amendment acted upon with the second reading
waived on March 21, 1983.
ORDINANCE NO. 434 -A6
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 434
TO REGULATE SPECIAL PURPOSE POOLS
WHICH ARE LOCATED INDOORS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Paragraph (g) of Section 6 of Ordinance 434 is amended by
addition the following paragraph at the end of Section 6(g) : -
"The Edina Building Official may waive the deck requirement for
a special purpose swimming pool under the following conditions:
1. The pool is located indoors and the pool is accessible
from at least one side by a deck;
2. The deck is no less than 4 feet wide as measured
perpendicular to the pool's' side and no less than 8 feet
long as measured parallel with the pools' side; and
3. The pool is no greater than 80 square feet in water
surface area.
a Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its
pssage and publication.
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Published in the Edina Sun on
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor